Parental alienation involves the systematic brainwashing, poisoning and manipulation of children with the sole purpose of destroying a loving and warm relationship they once shared with a parent. My story involves this form of child abuse & exploring the bias favouring a mother in the social ecosystem around Family Law.

I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Tasha,
I am extremely disappointed in your rhetoric. I say rhetoric because
you have cited no peer reviewed studies to support your spurious claims.
I have read the Aussie reports you quote and they are, in many
respects, mendacious and written to an audience of very selfish people
such as yourself.

You jump off the cliff with comments like: “…that
not only were some children at risk of being placed in violent
situations,…” The implied deducement from this is to paint dads as the
culprit. In fact, it is clear in Australia, as it is in the USA, if not
Canada, the most dangerous place for a child is in the care of someone
like you – the single mom unable to stand the stresses of child rearing,
work, custody battles, addiction, depression and a host of other
factors. You can get the multicountry reports on this page with links to
the original government data. http://victimfeministcentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/mothers-commit-vast-majority-of.html.

I
raised two girls from infancy and formed an intimate bond with them
during feeding using alternately breast milk from a bottle and formula.
Dare I say the early morning feedings, amongst others, all alone with
my child in a dimly lit room were some of the most satisfying of my
life. She is nestled in your arm, resting her head against you,
listening to the heart beat she is so familiar with, and feeds
voraciously for a time, slowing as she gets satiated. You raise her up
over your shoulder and gently tap her on the back and when she burps you
have a sense of immense satisfaction. As she nods off to sleep you kiss
her and place her gently back in the crib. I, as a man, can nurture a
child as good as any woman on earth, including you, and you do a
disservice to yourself and your child with such selfish apostasy of
dads.

I did it for 10 years before your attitude, which is all too
prevalent in Family Law and the Feminist support ecosystem stripped them
from me and turned me into a visitor. The reason – as you described - I
was guilty of being male and nothing else. Shame on you. (More comments after her two articles at bottom)MJM

Tomorrow, June 16, is a day that has come far too quickly: my
daughter Zara’s first birthday. It is a time to pause and reflect on the
joys and craziness of parenting, and on the realization that Zara will
never again repeat her first steps and first words (no, not Mama or
Dada, but “car”. Oh well, at least the kid knows what she likes).

Her birthday also falls less than a week before Father’s Day, and
thus also brought to mind a piece of legislation before Parliament which
would radically change child custody and access laws in Canada: Bill C-422.

This private member’s bill, introduced by Conservative MP Maurice
Vellacott, would amend the Divorce Act to mandate “equal shared
parenting” when parents split up. Courts would start from the
presumption that parents share time with the kids and decision making on
a 50-50 basis, and put the legal onus on parents to show that such an
arrangement would not be in the child’s best interest.

Before I had a baby, I would probably have supported this
legislation. Who would deny a child the right to the equal love and care
of both parents? Why do mothers get custody so much more often than
fathers?
Raising an infant as a single parent for the past year, however, has
changed my opinion. Not because I think that children don’t need
fathers, but because I realize that they need each parent in different
ways at different stages of development. And unfortunately, Bill C-422
presumes that equal parenting is best regardless of circumstance,
including the age of the child.

Children are constantly changing, and what may work for a 12-year-old
may hurt a two-year-old. Case in point: shared physical custody. A
pre-teen can fully understand that when he stays with mom one week and
dad the next, he will be seeing mom again soon. But an infant cannot
grasp this fact. Even a toddler is unable to fully verbalize desires and
feelings, while teenagers, if I recall the drama I put my own parents
through, are only too able to express themselves.

When it comes to very young children, the presumption of the bill
contradicts the first law of every parenting book on Earth: Disrupt a
baby’s routine as little as possible. Expert after expert advises
parents to establish one sleep routine, nap routine and meal routine,
and to ease young children slowly into transitions, such as moving house
or mommy going back to work. They further warn that vacations — or any
time away overnight from home — will prove disruptive. Indeed, what
parents haven’t returned from a trip with their tots only to find that
they suddenly won’t sleep through the night, or cling to your leg like
Saran Wrap?

Add to that the advice of the medical community that breastfeeding is
best for infants under one year. As a mother who nursed for that time, I
can testify only too well that breastfeeding is about much more than
food. It is about comfort– when baby cannot sleep or is sick, teething
or cranky. No offence, dads, but there are some things men just cannot
do. Separating a breastfeeding infant from its mother is just plain
cruel, never mind impossible if the child refuses to drink from a
bottle.

Which brings us back to Bill C-422. Equal shared parenting would mean
that very young children could be constantly shuttled back and forth
between their parents’ homes. Breast here, bottle there, stay-at-home
parent here, daycare there. This type of endless transitioning will do
them no favours — in fact, it can do a lot of damage. Courts can already order these kinds of arrangements, even without shared parenting rules, and there is mounting evidence that the stress hurts a young child’s ability to attach to either parent, and to other people in general.

Bill C-422 would make this type of arrangement even more common at a
time when other jurisdictions are questioning this model. Case in point:
The Australian government, which four years ago introduced mandatory
equal parenting legislation, is currently under pressure to revise its
laws in the wake of several damning reports. Researchers found that
not only were some children at risk of being placed in violent
situations, but even children who were physically safe felt depressed,
stressed and confused, and suffered adjustment problems. They also found
that some fathers’ motivation in seeking shared custody was not to bond
with their children, but to reduce the amount of child support they had
to pay.

A consistent theme in child psychological literature is that children
under the age of three need stability to grow up to be well-adjusted
and confident adults. In Zara’s case, she is fortunate to have a father
who gets that, and puts her needs ahead of his “right” to take her
overnight alone, even under current laws. Until she is ready for
overnights, Zara visits with him regularly at her home in the GTA and at
his home in Montreal, with both parents present. Now one year old, Zara
recognizes her father, greets him with her sunny smile, calls him Dada
and is happy in his presence and his arms — all without suffering the
anxiety of being torn from one parent to another at a young age.

Granted, this type of arrangement takes compromise by both mom and
dad, and would not work for everyone, but isn’t that the point? Imposing
a universal shared parenting presumption, with equal time regardless of
age or situation, is not in the best interests of children. Respecting
their stages of development is, and so is allowing parents to come up
with their own solutions.

I hope our lawmakers will allow other fractured families the same
latitude, and defeat Bill C-422 or amend it to respect the needs of very
young children, and other special circumstances. Until then, happy
birthday Zara, and happy Father’s Day, Ian. You both deserve the best
celebrations a daughter and dad can have.
tkheiriddin@nationalpost.com

Tasha Kheiriddin: Sometimes unequal works, Part II

Yesterday I wrote a column,
about my feelings on Bill C-422 and the presumption of shared custody,
which got an extremely negative reaction from readers. Apparently I
have now joined the ranks of “sperm-hunting lesbians”,
hormonally-challenged post-partum mothers, and other such stereotypes.
It would be almost comical if the issue wasn’t such a serious one, or
one that matters to me very deeply as a parent.

Needless to say, I was surprised by the visceral tone of many
comments. So was our daughter’s father, who had received many positive
reactions from friends about the piece, and was himself supportive of
it.
Many fathers are clearly angry about current custody and access laws,
and with good reason. Some of the stories readers sent in, when they
weren’t draped in personal attacks, were truly heartbreaking. No one
wants to be denied access to his children.

And nowhere did I say that fathers should be denied access. It is
the assumption that certain types of access, such as overnight stays at a
very young age, are in a child’s best interest, that I find
objectionable. Call me whatever names you want, but you will not
convince me that shuttling an infant, breastfeeding or not, between two
different home environments, is best for that child’s sleep habits,
sense of security, or attachment to either parent.

The problem I have with Bill C-422 is that it would establish a legal
presumption that shared care is in the child’s best interest,
regardless of age. The bill is silent on any circumstances related to
the child’s stage of development; rather it sets up a presumption that
parties will have to rebut in court.

The fear fathers have is that if a mother gets full custody and there
are no overnight visits in a child’s early years, that this situation
will never change. Unfortunately our legal system confirms their
concern, as judges are reluctant to reverse “what is”, and expand
visitation or change custody arrangements once they have been set up.

But the answer is not to create a blanket legal presumption of shared
care. Why not, instead, set up a system where access and custody are
considered a “living tree”? That is to say, they change as the child
grows, and as his or her needs change, depending on many factors,
including age. When parties cannot agree on their own parenting plan,
and end up in court, this could be done by a system of mandatory court
reevaluations, once a year or even every six months in highly
conflictual cases, less frequently in less antagonistic situations.

If parties knew that a reevaluation would be automatically performed
at set intervals, then they might both be more mindful of how they
parent their children. It could discourage parental alienation
syndrome, failure to pay child support, and other problems, because both
parties would know that their behaviour would be regularly revisited.
Since reevaluation would be predictable, a parent would not have to
file a costly motion to reopen his or her case, and face stonewalling
from the other side, delays and high legal bills. If on the flip side,
both parents felt things were working fine, they could be given the
option to opt out of the review with a consent signed by both parties.

Ultimately, this debate is not about fathers’ rights, or mothers’
rights. It is about children’s rights. Those include the right to have
a relationship with both parents, but also to have his or her
developmental needs respected. As a parent, that is my only concern. I
would hope that other parents share it too.

Further commentary left on site by Mike Murphy. For those wanting to get a grounding in the issues surrounding Shared/Equal parenting these two articles should be must reading. Go to the links at the NP and read the many observations.

"Expert
after expert advises parents to establish one sleep routine, nap
routine and meal routine, and to ease young children slowly into
transitions, such as moving house or mommy going back to work. They
further warn that vacations — or any time away overnight from home —
will prove disruptive. Indeed, what parents haven’t returned from a trip
with their tots only to find that they suddenly won’t sleep through the
night, or cling to your leg like Saran Wrap?"

Better not tell
all the private and public day care centers where many children of
working single moms end up. I call this "Sole Custody Proxy Parenting"
which happens in many cases. Who is looking after your child today while
you work? The presumption of 50-50 equal parenting does not suggest
sensible parents cannot work out a routine for the child that is "child
centered" not mom centered the latter, of which, is your view. What do
you think happens with intact families. Sometimes dad even stays home
for a time if his employer allows paternity leave while mom goes back to
work.

Experience shows children can manage quite well when
travelling if mom and/or dad are not over reacting. I can attest to
that with both my daughters. They travelled daily after about 3 months
home from the hospital.

I'll try to deal with your points one at a time to show you are ill researched, ill advised and incredibly selfish.

"No
offence, dads, but there are some things men just cannot do. Separating
a breastfeeding infant from its mother is just plain cruel, never mind
impossible if the child refuses to drink from a bottle."

There
must be an incredible amount of cruelty worldwide when millions of
children must be fed from a bottle. You took this one right out of an
Aussie feminist handbook and you are sounding a great deal like a
feminist Australian journalist by the name of Caroline Overington who
fears shared parenting as she might lose control of her husband if she
has to share the children with their father. It is one fool proof method
selfish moms use to control their separated/divorce husbands. As
mentioned previously lots of infants have breast milk from bottles and
for millions of families formula works well. Just ask those billion
dollar companies who make it.

"They
also found that some fathers’ motivation in seeking shared custody was
not to bond with their children, but to reduce the amount of child
support they had to pay."

This is a canard that gets trotted out
in all jurisdictions who introduce shared parenting. When one looks at
the logic of the observation its silliness slaps you in the face. The
other side of the coin is mom doesn't want to share the child with the
dad because she wants to maintain control of him through both sole
physical custody and financial coercion.

If dad has equal custody
of the child he will be supporting his offspring directly not paying
disguised alimony to his ex wife. By parroting the argument he is
being selfish you defame dads through sexism. You deny that a father has
an emotional bond with his children and he is no more than a machine
driven by money. What utter nonsense is that line of thinking and, in
turn, tends to treat women as children unable to financially support
themselves without a parasitic attachment to the man they left. Most
divorces in Canada - about 75% - are initiated by mom. Why do you
think this occurs? Could it be the current entitlement system. Where
shared parenting has occurred divorce rates go down

"Until
she is ready for overnights, Zara visits with him regularly at her home
in the GTA and at his home in Montreal, with both parents present. Now
one year old, Zara recognizes her father, greets him with her sunny
smile, calls him Dada and is happy in his presence and his arms — all
without suffering the anxiety of being torn from one parent to another
at a young age."

This sounds like a mechanical and loveless
arrangement where the dad was no more than a sperm donor. To suggest
that a father who co-created the child Zara would be "tearing" his child
away tells me lots about you. I see an anxious, selfish, over
protective parent willing to agree with spurious commentary from like
people in another country that is setting the child up for having future
relationship problems.

You are conservative in some manner, i
guess, but you follow the feminist talking points to the core when it
comes to your biological offspring. That is not a compliment nor a good
recipe for raising a child. You will be transmitting all of your own
awkwardness to your child and it will affect her relationship with her
father in a negative manner. You diminish masculinity, you bow to
maternal supremacy, you denigrate dads and marginalize the most
important male role model your daughter could have - her father.

Perhaps Minister Nicholson will appoint you as a Federal Family Court Judge. You fit the profile to a "T".

Tasha
makes no mention of the official massive study by the Australian
Government produced by by the Australian Institute of Family Studies,
which was charged with evaluating their 2006 shared parenting
legislation.

It is one of the biggest family policy research
projects ever undertaken in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter,
dealing with shared/equal parenting designed solely to give the
government advice on the 2006 legislation.

It’s overall findings can be viewed as credible and authoritative.

These findings include:

-
Most parents with a child under 18 years old agreed that the continuing
involvement of each parent following parental separation is beneficial
for the children (81% of parents interviewed in 2009). In 2006, the
proportion of parents believing that the continuing involvement of each
parent following parental separation is beneficial for the children was
slightly lower (77%).

- Most parents in the 2009 survey believed
that spending approximately half the time with each parent can be
appropriate, even for children under 3 years old.

- An Australian
Government report published before the 2006 Act indicated that there
were perceptions in the community about an 80–20 rule in arrangements
for children to spend time with their parents after separation, with
mothers mostly having their child for 80% of the time. The evaluation
data show that advice consistent with such a rule was provided by
lawyers much less often after the reforms than prior to the reforms.

-
Parents who contributed jointly to decisions about their child were
more likely than other parents to indicate full compliance in providing
child support payments.

- Total court filings in children’s matters have declined

-
The majority of parents in shared care-time arrangements reported that
the reforms worked well for them and for their children.

Although
areas for improvement were found the overall thrust of the report
indicated it was working. The Family Relationship Centres were available
to help in many cases and particularly those in high conflict. The
evaluation report itself, all 405 pages, can be downloaded here. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fle/evaluationreport.pdf

@Infosaturated
It appears you are as misinformed as Kheiriddin and can manage to
create stats right out of thin air. These magical powers are a regular
feature in feminist discourse. "The grand majority of men do not even
request custody, 90% I believe all thought that may have changed. In
cases where men do request custody they are successful in about 50% of
the cases"

You must live in a rabbit hole with Alice to be able
to dream these things up. I won't deal with your other silliness as i
don't want to waste my time but here's something to chew on.

Contested Custody Claims in Canada

According
to a report by the Canadian Department of Justice (1) less than 4% of
divorces are finalized by a contested hearing in Canada. In contested
cases (where there is a counter-petition or trial), 75% result in sole
maternal custody and only 8% in sole paternal custody.

The above
information is from an article by Jane Pulkingham in the Canadian
Journal of Law and Society, Vol 9, #2, Fall 1994, p.73-97.

According
to StatsCan mom gets 90% of physical custody in Canada. Dad gets 8% and
the other 2% may well be shared care or other family. The rest of your
observations are just as suspect.

"Those include the right to have a
relationship with both parents, but also to have his or her
developmental needs respected. As a parent, that is my only concern."

You
show incredible naivette and still imbue your comments with maternal
(gender) supremacy. Why not have dad take care of the child in infancy,
where he is agreeable and you be the visitor. I thought so. You have
the "boobs" you say and that is all the courts use in deciding custody.

As
soon as a dad agrees to your course of action he has defacto given up
any rights he might have thought he had to be a legal parent unless mom
agrees to equal parenting outside of court. Will you do this when she
meets your approved age of development? The longer your plan goes on
and the child has little contact with dad the more likely the courts
will believe your nonsense about attachment and developmental needs. It
is a self fulfilling prophecy,

A child needs both parents to
develop fully. The father of the child has been sold a bill of goods and
any loving biological father who would fall for your line of thinking
is deserving of only being a visitor. He obviously has other priorities
higher than his child. Its rather sad for your daughter and its her
loss, not yours.

Your feminist training in law school has done
its work. No doubt some of what you were taught involved feminists
sycophants like Peter Jaffe. Your daughter will be less of the adult
she could be by your very selfish attitude. Bill C-422 is an effort to
level the playing field but as long as we have Maternal Supremacists
like you the road for equality for fathers will be long and hard.

Anything
of yours I read in the future will be coloured by this thought process
which is not in the best interest of children. Your mythological
presumptions are not supported by the most recent research. Men and
women are different and bring to the table different skills to rearing a
child. To suggest one is superior is to think much like people who
believe certain racial types are more superior than others. Both are
abhorrent concepts.

What
Tasha can't see because of her Maternal filters and training in law
school is most parents when approaching custody from a non-adversarial
level playing field will work out what is best for the child. Infants
will be a small proportion of children involved but when they are most
parents treated equally and knowing they will not be losing anything
through such deliberations will, if breast feeding is involved, do whats
best for the child.

I have an advantage in knowing what we men
are capable of in nurturing children because I was a full time
stay-at-home parent from infancy for 10 years and I don't have boobs.
(My 11 year old does describe them as "man boobs" cause I've gained a
little weight.) I write from a perspective of a male whose been there
done that and I am as equal as any mom , man boobs or not.

Its
the adversarial and current entitlement system that is a large part of
the problem and is supported by the lawyers. C-422 will help to diminish
that and truly work out best interests. Most reasonable people can
surmise that if Bar Associations oppose a certain law, that law just may
have some merit. These lawyer associations are no more than self
interested lobby groups looking out for the best interest of their
members not parents or children. They currently make, on average, $25K
per client in a divorce action. They do not want to see that reduced.
Fortunately for parents there are lawyers out there who do see the
imbalance in the current winner take all arena called family court and
are working to change it.

Tasha Kheiriddin: ‘Equal shared parenting’ law doesn’t put kids first

March 20, 2014

On March 25, Bill C-560 goes to second reading before the House of Commons. The private member’s bill, moved by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, would amend the Divorce Act and related statutes to make equal shared parenting (ESP) the law in Canada. In Wednesday’s paper, my fellow columnist Barbara Kay wrote a spirited defence of the legislation, primarily because she says it is in the interests of children. While the bill is well-intentioned, and with the greatest respect for Ms. Kay, I must disagree.

ESP does not put kids first. According to a report by the Australian government on its shared parenting laws, legal professionals found that ESP led to a prioritization of parents’ rights over those of their children. In the words of one Australian lawyer, “I often get a lot of twisting of reading the Act. So, ‘It’s my child’s rights to spend 50–50 with me’. … [W]hat the parents want, gets twisted into children’s rights, which is not what the Act is actually saying.”

Here in Canada, Bill C-560 would create a legal presumption that “allocating parenting time equally between the spouses is in the best interests of a child.” This could be “rebutted if it is established that the best interests of the child would be substantially enhanced by allocating [time] other than equally.” Ms. Kay writes that this creates a “steep but not insurmountable hill” for those desiring “primary parent” status.

But why should a parent have to climb that hill, if he or she already is the primary parent in terms of hands-on care? The other parent may work more hours, not because he or she loves the children any less, but based on financial need, personal preference or parenting ability. To assume that this division of labour will, and should, suddenly be equally shared after divorce is absurd. The parent who has been at the office until 8 p.m. cannot suddenly be there for a 3:30 p.m. pick-up. The parent who does not enjoy caring for a toddler will not suddenly become Mary Poppins. And it is the kids who would suffer as a result.

Instead of saying, as Bill C-560 does, that “every child has the right to know and be cared for by both parents,” why not add the words “to the best of their ability”? As they do now, courts should evaluate each case on the individual facts, instead of starting from a false presumption that parents can and should parent “equally.”

Related

Bill C-560 also fails the interests of children when it comes to age. Shared custody arrangements can cause young children to fail to form stable attachments to both primary and secondary caregivers. A University of Virginia study published last year in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that 43% of babies with weekly overnight visits to the other parent were insecurely attached to their mothers, compared to 16% with less frequent overnights. In the words of research advisor Robert Emery, “I would like infants and toddlers to be securely attached to two parents, but I am more worried about them being securely attached to zero parents.”

Instead of assuming ESP is best at all ages, why not endorse — as the Virginia study and many others do — a graduated approach? Get to 50-50 parenting over time. Currently, many parents will demand ESP because once a pattern of care is established, courts are reluctant to change it. Courts should instead be directed to order progression and review at regular intervals, to respect kids’ developmental needs.

Why not require recipients to file expense reports on a regular basis? This would reassure the payor that payments are actually going to support the kids

Then there’s money. The paradox for separating parents is that the less time they have with their kids, the more support they usually pay. ESP can mean less, or even no, support payments. Regrettably, even if parents don’t want or can’t handle 50-50 time with their children, they may seek it for financial reasons — or to ensure that they, not the other parent, controls the money spent on their children.

For this, there is also a solution: Make the support recipient financially accountable. While parents must file a budget during the separation or divorce process, there is no post-split follow-up. Why not require recipients to file expense reports on a regular basis? This would reassure the payor that payments are actually going to support the kids.

In short, ESP throws the baby out with the bathwater, while neither serving the best interests of children nor resolving key sticking points in separation and divorce. Here’s hoping that our MPs recognize this, and either amend or reject Bill C-560.

Favourite Quotes

“The job of a father is this : to help his children develop, to teach them to express and master their emotions; to avoid physiological distress, to provide a context for their experiences; to help them persevere, reach their goals and take on responsibilities; and to instil the roles of citizen, partner and parent. In short, it is to fill their bellies with bread, their brains with wisdom and their hearts with love and courage.” Camil Bouchard, “On Father’s Ground” 2002.

Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, "Why not?" ~ George Bernard Shaw ~ also quoted by Robert F. Kennedy, US Senator and Presidential Candidate assassinated in 1968.

Happiness makes up in height for what it lacks in length. ~ Robert Frost

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi

Search my blogs with a custom keyword search by Google

Eastern Standard Time - North America

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario

Western Australia (DST from last Sunday in Oct. to last Sunday in March)

Perth, Western Australia

Some Gems on relationships

Marriage is a relationship in which one person is always right, and the other is a husband.

The motto of this Father's Rights Activist

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again ... and who, at the worst, if he fails at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt,

Facts on violence in Canada Domestic and Otherwise

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2009.

Of the nearly 19 million Canadians who had a current or former spouse in 2009, 6.2% or 1.2 million reported they had been victimized physically or sexually by their partner or spouse during the five years prior to the survey. This proportion was stable from 2004 (6.6%), the last time the victimization survey was conducted, and down from 1999 (7.4%).

A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.

Total 611, men 465, women 146Rate of homicides with firearms has increased 24% since 2002. Handgun use on increase (gangs don't register their weapons)Women victims 24% - lowest proportion everMen Victims 76%Both the rate of females killed (0.87 per 100,000 population), as well as the proportion(24%), were the lowest since 196162 spousal homicides - no change from 2007Lowest rate in 40 years45 women 17 (27.4%)men

Many DV homicides of men are not classified as such and this number is higher than 27.4%.

In 2009 based on a million couples it can fairly be said 999,998 wives do not kill their husbands and 999,995 husbands do not kill their wives. (See Pg. 15 chart modified from the rate per 100,000.)

In 2009, 49 women and 15 men were killed by a current or former spouse (excludes one same-sex spousal victim).

Total homicides 610, Men 450. Gang related 20.3 percent.69.1 % of firearm related deaths involved handgunsWomen 160, In 2009 it represented the second lowest proportion (26%) of female homicide victims since data were first collected. The rate of female victims has generally been declining since the late 1960s.

Profile

I am Politically active and right of centre on most issues with the odd exception such as legalization of "Mary Jane".
I advocate on changes to Family Law - an incredibly dysfunctional arena where parents are pitted against one another and children are the victims.
My picture will sometimes show me as a younger man simply because I like them.

An Alienated Child

Is a troubled child

American Coalition for Fathers & Children Petition

A quote by a well known Canadian Jurist

The Honorable Justice John Gomery of Canada stated, “Hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught. A parent who would teach a child to hate the other parent represents a grave and persistent danger to the mental and emotional health of that child.”

(The above quote arises from PSM vs. AJC, a decision rendered by Mr. Justice John Gomery on February 15 1991 (SCM 500-12-184613895), and confirmed by the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal on June 14 1991, the trial judge was confronted by a case involving four children caught up in a heated custody battle between their parents whereby the children became "catastrophically" alienated from their mother.)A good paper on PAS for lawyers by a lawyer, Anne-France Goldwater (Avocate), and excerpts from the above trial are located here.